Remember me on this computer.
  • Gold -32.36 (1,726.30)
  • Silver -0.68 (33.65)
  • Copper +0.12 (3.90)
  • WTI Oil -0.07 (97.77)
  • NYMEX Gas +0.01 (2.51)
  • S&P/TSX +23.80 (12,577.28)
Subscription Sign-up

U.S. GDP Growth - StockResearchPortal.com

Email Header


January 29, 2010

Good Morning:

U.S. GDP Growth

An article published before the U.S. Q4 2009 GDP numbers were released at 8:30 this morning titled 'GDP could be the best in nearly four years' says "U.S. economic growth probably increased at the fastest pace in nearly four years over the final three months of 2009, but it's not yet time to break out the champagne".

Economists are reported as forecasting 5.4% annualized (seasonally adjusted) GDP growth (actual as subsequently released 5.7%) as contrasted with an annualized Q3 2009 gain of 2.2%.  That said, the article reports one Goldman Sachs economist as attributing Q4 GDP growth to "massive swing in inventories" - most of the Q4 2009 growth is reported as coming from unsold goods inventory adjustments - and "enormous levels of government stimulus".  In Q4 2008, the economy coincidently dropped at a 5.4% annual rate.

The article also:

·    says the real issue is what happens to in 2010 when few economists expect much acceleration in consumer spending, given the U.S. jobs market;

·    reports 'good news' in that shipments of core business capital equipment goods jumped to a 18.7% annual rate in Q4  2009.  , the fastest growth since 2000 - this in circumstances where U.S. business capital stock declined after 2007 and the existing stock of production equipment is aging; and,

·    says most economists are forecasting annualized growth rates of about 3% for the next several quarters, which would be enough growth to stabilize the economy, but not strong enough to replace the U.S. jobs lost after 2007.

My comments:

·    first, I have said in several e-mails that one ought not to be taken in by application of % increases.  On their face, a 5.4 % annual decrease and a 5.4% annual increase could easily be read as offsets.  If you do the math you will find that if you decrease 100 by 5.4%, and then increase the result by 5.4% you derive a result of 99.7, not 100;

·    second, and importantly, U.S. GDP is reported as a nominal (inflation included) statistic.  For the 12 months ended December, 2009 the U.S. CPI Index was reported as 2.7%, thus an annualized U.S. GDP of 5.7% would imput annualized 'real growth' of 3.0% in the U.S. economy in Q4 2009.  What with continued U.S. job losses, etc., that is a result intuitively I seriously doubt;

·    third, equity values are driven on prospective after-tax free cash flow generation.  To the extent that the capital equipment being used by U.S. businesses is aging and becoming technologically obsolete, I don't think one can simply look at the U.S. equipment goods growth rate and say - "wow".  It may have been (as stated in the referenced article) that a substantive part of those equipment acquisitions in Q4 2009 were purchased out of necessity and were not discretionary purchases.  Without knowing the split between 'sustaining capital purchases' (which reduce 'free cash flow') and 'growth capital purchases' (which enhance 'free cash flow') I consider the Q4 2009 'core business capital goods' growth number to be comparatively meaningless as an indicator of economic growth or prospective economic growth;

·    fourth, forecasts suggest annualized U.S. GDP of 3.0% for 2010, meaning that if U.S. CPI again is 2.7% in 2010, the 'real growth' rate in the U.S. economy will be 0.3% - not much of a recovery - a result that would be unlikely to create any meaningful U.S. 2010 job creation; and,

·    the DJIA is up 63 points this morning as I complete this e-mail - presumably in part because of the 'favourable GDP' report that exceeded economist consensus estimates.  I continue not to understand the generally positive momentum in the U.S. equity markets in the face of what I see as a U.S. economic 'muddle'.

*          *          *          *          *

As always, please forward ideas to me as to how we can improve StockResearchPortal.com at info@stockresearchportal.com.

Best Regards,

Ian R. Campbell's Signature

Ian R. Campbell
President
StockResearchPortal.com

Notes to Readers

This email and its content is in no way to be interpreted as an endorsement of one or more of the companies mentioned herein, a suggestion as to the future direction of the stock price of one or more of them, or a suggestion or recommendation to buy or sell the shares of one or more of them.  Rather this email is simply a short overview commentary and tutorial demonstrating the type of information available on StockResearchPortal.com and how to access it.

The owners of Stock Research DD Inc. (the owner of StockResearchPortal.com and StockResearchPortalBlog.com) or their families, entities in which they have ownership interests, and officers, directors, employees, agents, partners, affiliates and partners of Stock Research DD Inc. may beneficially own securities and participate in Private Placements of companies referenced in this E-mail.  The fact that one or more companies are referenced or discussed in this E-mail should not be construed as an endorsement or investment recommendation with respect to those companies or their securities.